![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The proposed deletion of this page would be wrong because:
1. It is a work in progress, a very comprehensive work which stretches over 22 years from 1970-1992, so far it is only up to 1973.
2. The intention of this editor is to include more detail on attacks which are purely military operations but thus far it seemed a better idea to list items then progress from there.
In the interim, to avoid further confusion I am restoring the {underconstruction} tag. The Thunderer ( talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I intend to remove content from this article and I am looking for consensus on what criteria we should use for inclusion. Fatalities, large scale attacks, incidents which caused multiple press reports (significant?), incidents which have been cited by sources as significant or important... has been suggested by Kernel Saunters has any other editors got an opinion on what should or shouldn't be included. As the article stands I feel it is in breach of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. For a start I am going to remove all non fatalities, while we reach consensus on criteria. BigDunc Talk 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there any similar articles on wiki that we could use as a template? What is the criteria on them or is this article unique? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the article? Having read it again, each of these incidents, on their own would not be notable at all. The ones that would meet the criteria on notability could be in the main body of the UDR article, but the rest is just filler. I'd suggest including what is notable in the main article, and put this up on AFD? What do other editors think? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we going to create articles on attacks on military units of all the 193 countries? Frankly speaking such ultra-detail article is a bit memorial, indiscriminate and outside the scope of general notability. In this way we can create Attacks on X police unit, Attacks on Y police unit and so on. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict)I agree that is why I placed Prod on it as it fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Maybe AfD would have been better. BigDunc Talk 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with both User_talk:BigDunc and User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and their comments on memorial aspect of the article. That User:Kernel Saunters has a concern as well should help resolve the issues involved. The issue I'd have is the inclusion of "off-duty." If the article is about attacks on the UDR, the inclusion of off-duty dose not make sense. On or off duty they were armed members of the UDR. Now I can expand on this, if editors feel I have not explained the issue I have well enough, but I hope you get what I mean? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I am going to reduce this article inline with The troubles in... articles with a criteria of resulting in two or more fatalities, unless significant and notable and backed up with reliable sources. BigDunc Talk 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The proposed deletion of this page would be wrong because:
1. It is a work in progress, a very comprehensive work which stretches over 22 years from 1970-1992, so far it is only up to 1973.
2. The intention of this editor is to include more detail on attacks which are purely military operations but thus far it seemed a better idea to list items then progress from there.
In the interim, to avoid further confusion I am restoring the {underconstruction} tag. The Thunderer ( talk) 14:54, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
I intend to remove content from this article and I am looking for consensus on what criteria we should use for inclusion. Fatalities, large scale attacks, incidents which caused multiple press reports (significant?), incidents which have been cited by sources as significant or important... has been suggested by Kernel Saunters has any other editors got an opinion on what should or shouldn't be included. As the article stands I feel it is in breach of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. For a start I am going to remove all non fatalities, while we reach consensus on criteria. BigDunc Talk 21:21, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Are there any similar articles on wiki that we could use as a template? What is the criteria on them or is this article unique? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:01, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
What is the purpose of the article? Having read it again, each of these incidents, on their own would not be notable at all. The ones that would meet the criteria on notability could be in the main body of the UDR article, but the rest is just filler. I'd suggest including what is notable in the main article, and put this up on AFD? What do other editors think? -- Domer48 'fenian' 21:59, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
Are we going to create articles on attacks on military units of all the 193 countries? Frankly speaking such ultra-detail article is a bit memorial, indiscriminate and outside the scope of general notability. In this way we can create Attacks on X police unit, Attacks on Y police unit and so on. Otolemur crassicaudatus ( talk) 19:45, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
(editconflict)I agree that is why I placed Prod on it as it fails WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Maybe AfD would have been better. BigDunc Talk 19:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I'd have to agree with both User_talk:BigDunc and User:Otolemur crassicaudatus and their comments on memorial aspect of the article. That User:Kernel Saunters has a concern as well should help resolve the issues involved. The issue I'd have is the inclusion of "off-duty." If the article is about attacks on the UDR, the inclusion of off-duty dose not make sense. On or off duty they were armed members of the UDR. Now I can expand on this, if editors feel I have not explained the issue I have well enough, but I hope you get what I mean? -- Domer48 'fenian' 20:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
I am going to reduce this article inline with The troubles in... articles with a criteria of resulting in two or more fatalities, unless significant and notable and backed up with reliable sources. BigDunc Talk 20:36, 27 April 2009 (UTC)